Talk:Silmarils/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 18:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I will review Fëanor, Morgoth, and Silmarils. It may take a bit longer than usual. TompaDompa (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

General comments

 * The article should be written in the present tense per MOS:WAF.
 * Done.
 * A couple of spots remain: They were made by the Elf Fëanor and fight anyone who withheld the Silmarils. TompaDompa (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * The article is not consistent when it comes to the capitalization (or not) of "Elf"/"Elves"/"Elvish".
 * Fixed.


 * At the risk of being a bit annoying, is there a strong reason to have separate articles for Fëanor and the Silmarils? They are very intertwined both in-universe and when it comes to scholarly analysis. If I were writing it all from scratch, I think I would probably cover Fëanor, the sons of Fëanor, the Oath of Fëanor, and the Silmarils in a single article. There is significant overlap, arguably to the point of redundancy.
 * Yes there is. Fëanor is a major character in his own right, and the cited scholars discuss him as such: indeed, we have at least four scholars illuminating different aspects of his powerful but dangerously creative nature, and drawing parallels with Tolkien and his own "sub-creation". As for the Silmarils, scholars are clear that the created light symbol is extremely important in Tolkien's writings; it isn't an accident that the Silmarillion is named for them. You might note, too, for instance, that the analysis of the Silmarils' origins in Tolkien's Sigelwara Land isn't anything to do with Fëanor; that he is just one of several major characters in the fictional history of the Silmarils; and that he only forms one step in the long downward-spiralling history of the splintering of the light.
 * I was thinking more about folding Fëanor into this article than vice versa. It's plain to see that there is plenty of analysis of the Silmarils that does not directly relate to Fëanor. Anyway, whether the Fëanor article needs to be tweaked to make it more clear to the reader why it is a topic worth covering separately is an issue for that GAN, not this one. TompaDompa (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I think we can close this thread; Fëanor is certainly notable.

Lead

 * Why link Elves and Dwarves but not Men?
 * Done.


 * Verlyn Flieger analyses The Silmarillion as story of splintering of the created light – I feel like at least one definite/indefinite article is missing.
 * Added.


 * Might link Hobbit.
 * Done.

Fictional history

 * The link in the first citation goes to page 81, but the reference says page 209.
 * Fixed.


 * Might mention that Varda is one of the Valar in the first paragraph rather than introducing the term (and link) when introducing Melkor in the second paragraph.
 * Done.


 * Together with his sons – I would state the number since a later paragraph mentions "Fëanor's two remaining sons".
 * Added.


 * Five major battles were fought in Beleriand – "Five major battles" feels like it should be piped somewhere, though I don't know if we have a better target than simply linking to the First Age, which this paragraph already does. Anyway, I might add something about the timeframe here ("Five major battles were fought in Beleriand over the course of [however many] years.").
 * On the general question (not this article), you're right, there are now too few Silmarillion / First Age articles, so the coverage of that period is quite patchy. The previous situation was a mass of in-universe articles with barely a citation between them, so we've made substantial progress. On the question of what to link here, there's nothing better available, so there's no action needed as far as this GAN is concerned.


 * Who is Mablung?
 * Glossed.


 * It was later taken to the Valar in the West by Eärendil, son of Tuor and Idril and husband of Elwing: heir of Beren and Lúthien, as a token of repentance. – could this be rephrased to make the relationships less confusing?
 * Trimmed.


 * as a token of repentance – for what?
 * Glossed.


 * remained in Morgoth's hands, and were taken from him – I would say "until they were taken".
 * Done.


 * Then Fëanor will be released from the Halls of Mandos and give Yavanna the Silmarils and she will break them and with their light she will revive the Two Trees, the Pelóri Mountains will be flattened and the light of the Two Trees will fill the world in eternal bliss. – a bit of a run-on sentence.
 * Split.

Analysis

 * Any particular reason the term "Aethiopian" is not a clickable link in the diagram?
 * Gosh, way beyond the GA criteria here. Added a box.


 * Is mcllibrary.org a reliable source?
 * I'd be impressed to see a punch-up in the quiet world of the classics. It's fine.
 * What is it meant to verify? If it's just that the word appears in the Junius manuscript, wouldn't it be better to cite Tolkien (https://www.jstor.org/stable/43625831)? TompaDompa (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed. Tolkien's "Sigelwara land" is already cited just afterwards. The ref isn't verifying anything, it's providing access to the text.


 * the former as it was the name of the Sun rune *sowilō (ᛋ), the latter from Latin sigillum, a seal. – I was unable to find this in the cited source.
 * Ah, that's Tolkien not Shippey. Repeated ref.


 * I would link Tolkien scholar.
 * Even at the risk of sea-of-blue, eh? Done.


 * The Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey states that this contributed to the sun-jewel Silmarils, "helped to naturalise the Balrog" (a demon of fire), while the Aethiopians suggested to Tolkien the Haradrim, a dark southern race of men. – the attribution is a bit unclear here. The reference placement would seem to suggest that the Silmarils and Balrog stuff comes from Shippey while the Haradrim stuff comes from Tolkien, but the wording makes it sound like it all comes from Shippey. The sentence structure is also a bit odd with "while" introducing the last item in a list.
 * Ah, you're right, an "and" was missing; and I've split the sentence.


 * Verlyn Flieger explains – MOS:SAID.
 * Reworded. Actually in this case, the rest of Tolkien scholarship is totally in awe of Flieger's analysis – if you read it, you will be too, it's precise, comprehensive, and fits the facts perfectly.


 * In the second Flieger reference, there is a hyphen that should be an en dash. For "passim", I would either use or replace it entirely.
 * Fixed. On hyphens/dashes, life is definitely too short to stuff the Hobbits' favourite food (and reviewers are welcome to make minor fixes directly).


 * Numenor – missing accent.
 * Fixed.


 * The painting and accompanying text seem really out of place here. This is the kind of image I would expect in the WP:LEAD.
 * Hm, I'm always chary of putting a fair-use image in the lead as it looks exploitative. We could logically have a 'Legacy' or some such section but it'd look a bit bare with just the one item in it.
 * I see your point about putting it in the lead. I'm not much of a fan of "Legacy"/"In popular culture" sections in general, trivia magnets as they are. How about moving it to the "Fictional history" section, seeing as it depicts a fictional event described there? I also just noticed that the caption and accompanying text do not quite match: the caption says 1979 whereas the accompanying text says 1997, and they differ in capitalization of "Casts". TompaDompa (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I've put the image there and folded the text into the caption, as it certainly isn't 'Fictional history'. Legacy/pop culture are like it or not often necessary; when authors, musicians, poets, and others take up a theme, a mythology can even be extended and grow into what Dimitra Fimi calls modern folklore, so it's not to be sneezed at.
 * Splendid, that's precisely what I had in mind. On the legacy/pop culture issue, I don't see any contradiction: there are times when we should cover that aspect (specifically when sources on the broader topic do), but such sections are notorious trivia magnets. I favour the approach of writing separate articles (e.g. Loch Ness Monster in popular culture, Jupiter in fiction, Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture) when we have sufficient material to do so. TompaDompa (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * See my comments above.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * See my comments above.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * See my comments above.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * See my comments above.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig reveals no copyvio and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * There are no aspects that immediately stand out as missing to me.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No obvious neutrality issues. Opinions are clearly distinguished from facts and attributed as appropriate.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * I am by no means an expert on copyright, but I think the use of the painting is a valid instance of fair use.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Ping. TompaDompa (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: The article now meets all the WP:Good article criteria. Well done! TompaDompa (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)